RFC on solution to Rejean's situation

Rejean Proulx rejean at interfree.ca
Sun Nov 2 08:02:37 EST 2003

Thank you luke.  If I had the money I'd use a business connection, but I
don't.  That is the problem with being a hobbyist.  These business high
speed connection are extremely expensive.  I priced a simple ADSL connection
and they wanted $179 a month.

 Rejean Proulx
Visit my family at http://interfree.ca
MSN is: rejp at rogers.com
Ham License VA3REJ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luke Davis" <ldavis at shellworld.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: RFC on solution to Rejean's situation

> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Allan Shaw wrote:
> > 1: I don't by the need or justification for 2 modems either from a
> > bandwidth or data transfer requirement.  The cable modem alone is more
> > likely sufficient to meet and exceed the network requirements.
> I made the same comment, and posed the question, more than once.  The last
> time was earlier today, and after a long discussion, he has convinced me
> of its value.
> There are port blocking issues with the ADSL provider, and bandwidth
> issues with the cable.  Apparently, the cable connection simply does not
> have the bandwidth to carry the necessary traffic.
> Now, if this were me, I would obtain either a 720K SDSL connection, or a
> fractional T1, and be done with it all, but it's not me, and not my
> finances.  As far as I can see, he is doing it in the only way possible to
> do it currently, without changing the amounts of money spent on
> connections drastically.
> As such, I am going to try to assist the situation as-is, with the
> understanding that I can't change the internet access situation.  So I
> either accept it and help, or don't accept it, and not help at all.  I
> choose the former solution.
> > 2: If you have 2 routers with 2 networks the 2 networks should be joined
> > through the routers not having a system bridging the networks.
> Clarify this a bit...
> Are you saying that the two internal Windows networks should become one,
> absorbing the Linux box?  If so, I completely agree.  My solution, while
> granted of the sledge-hammer sort, does accomplish this.
> If you're talking about "joining" the DSL and cable connections via their
> routers, I do not see exactly how you plan to pull that off.  I don't know
> what routing technology he has on site.
> If he has a good one, with four or so ports, he could probably plug both
> modems into this, and essentially do what I was suggesting, in a piece of
> hardware.  The question then is: what about the firewalling?
> > 3: Instead of trying to fix this problem with a sludge hammer, go out
> > get the right equipment, namely a new Firewall/router with a 8 port
> > and connect all servers and workstations to this device, a single modem
> > then configure it to allow and direct the appropriate services to the
> > appropriate server/workstation.
> There will not be a single modem.  There has to be two as things stand,
> and if a solution does not take this into account, it is not a solution.
> > 4: Personal opinion, I have rarely seen such a convaluded network
> > configuration in nearly 20 years of working with networks, but this is
> > my opinion.
> You mean my suggestion, or the existing setup?
> When I first came to this, I had never seen anything like the original
> setup--two connected Windows networks, two separate access points, two
> subnets, all connected, in a very odd balance.  I'm trying to simplify
> that, by getting everything on to a single subnet, for starters.
> Note, that the projects involving using old PCs as routers, using the
> power of Linux's iptables configurability, is cheap routing technology, is
> becoming quite common.  You seem to suggest (maybe I read you wrong), that
> doing this, regardless of the application I suggest, is, to expand upon a
> letter, stupid.
> I disagree with that, if indeed it is what you are saying.
> Now, my application of the method may not be good, which is my entire
> point in bringing it here, but the use of dedicated routing boxes in place
> of hardware routers, is not new, and is highly tested.
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

More information about the Speakup mailing list